1. Build Your Own Content Remediation Model
Krista Greear
Accessibility Strategist
Blackboard Ally
Accessing Higher Ground 2018

2. Who Is In The Room? AT Specialists Disability Services
Campus IT Accessibility
Instructional Designers
Campus Administrators
Other
No notes.

3. Prompt 1
Why do we care? Why are we here? What do you envision for your campus regarding accessible content? What do your campus leaders envision regarding accessible content?
No notes.

4. Disclaimers
What I share about UW is work that I did, cannot speak as to current state
This is not a sales pitch but an honest testimony
No notes.

5. Factors to Consider Content Remediation Model Litigation and Policies
History and Reputation
Campus Audit
Accessibility Expertise
Software Resources
Origin of Content
Prioritization Scheme
Factors to Consider

6. Why These?
Been part of a content remediation team for 10+ years at different levels
Student worker
Manager
Assistant Director
Visited dozens of campuses as a consultant in past 4 years
Public and private
Small to large
Little to significant experience
No notes.

7. Why This Approach?
My goal is to help you help your campus to implement a thoughtful, realistic, sustainable, and “baked in” approach to improving digital content.
No notes.

8. Focusing on the Factors

9. Litigation & Policies Content Remediation Model
Litigation and Policies
History and Reputation
Campus Audit
Accessibility Expertise
Software Resources
Origin of Content
Prioritization Scheme
Litigation & Policies

10. Questions - Litigation & Policies
Does your campus need to meet the terms of a settlement?
How much is your campus affected by settlements of other universities?
What drives the implementation of a policy on your campus?
What can be accomplished on campus WITHOUT a settlement?
No notes.

11. Examples of Settlements
Penn State and NFB (2010)
University of Montana and OCR (2012)
University of Colorado at Boulder and DOJ (2014)
University of California Berkeley and DOJ (2016)
No notes.

12. Examples of Policies
Penn State:
University of Montana:
University of Colorado at Boulder:
University of California Berkeley: accessibility-uc/policies-standards
No notes.

13. Potential Action Items - Litigation & Policies
If have policy…
Review current ICT policies on campus.
Consider a campaign or event to bring the ICT policy to campus’s attention.
Offer to lead or co-lead a presentation about the ICT policy.
If don’t have policy…
Working through the chain of command, notify the appropriate authority about missing ICT policy.
Gather examples of quality ICT policies.
Pull out the key thread from other ICT policies.
Share information with appropriate people.
No notes.

14. History & Reputation Content Remediation Model Litigation and Policies
History and Reputation
Campus Audit
Accessibility Expertise
Software Resources
Origin of Content
Prioritization Scheme
History & Reputation

15. Questions to Ask - History and Reputation
Does your campus have a reputation within the accessibility field?
Would this reputation affect how you build your content remediation model?
Is there a history of campus-wide accessibility efforts in the past?
Are you trying to do something that has already been tried before?
What historical context is important for this conversation?
No notes.

16. Examples of History and Reputation
Central Washington University
California community college and alt text
No notes.

17. Potential Action Items - History and Reputation
Talk to those on campus who have or might have knowledge of historical accessibility efforts.
Find or create a timeline of accessibility-related efforts.
resolution-timeline
No notes.

18. Campus Audit Content Remediation Model Litigation and Policies
History and Reputation
Campus Audit
Accessibility Expertise
Software Resources
Origin of Content
Prioritization Scheme
Campus Audit

19. Questions – Campus Audit
Do you have a tool that can be used to collect campus-wide accessibility audit?
Why is now a good time to bring a campus-wide accessibility audit tool, even in a pilot state?
Which would be a higher priority for executive leadership – improving content in the LMS or improving content on the website?
How often is the accessibility audit tool run?
How often is the data from the accessibility audit tool analyzed?
What is the “desired fruit” from running an accessibility audit?
No notes.

20. Examples – Campus Audit
University of WA
No notes.

21. Potential Action Items – Campus Audit
If have tool…
Determine or implement the cadence in which the tool is run and/or reviewed.
Evaluate who has access to said tool, and if that should change.
Distill the information into 3-5 takeaways that anyone can understand.
If don’t have tool…
Determine what type of audit is most beneficial (web or LMS).
Working through the chain of command, make a business case for why an audit is needed now.
Talk to a vendor at AHG.
Work with vendors for a pilot.
No notes.

22. Accessibility Expertise
Content Remediation Model
Litigation and Policies
History and Reputation
Campus Audit
Accessibility Expertise
Software Resources
Origin of Content
Prioritization Scheme
Accessibility Expertise

23. Questions – Accessibility Expertise
Who on campus has sufficient expertise in the following?
Document accessibility
Video accessibility
Web accessibility
What type of expertise is most needed on campus now?
Who on campus has a little bit of accessibility expertise?
Who on campus is willing/wanting to deepen their accessibility knowledge?
How did your current experts gain their expertise?
What are the best ways to learn gain accessibility expertise?
No notes.

24. Examples – Accessibility Expertise
School in Indiana with 1 person
School in California with several departments
No notes.

25. Potential Action Items – Accessibility Expertise
Identify current accessibility experts on campus.
Identify potential accessibility experts on campus.
Determine the next steps to support them as accessibility experts (demos of assistive technology users, watching webinars, signing up for listservs, etc.)​
No notes.

26. Software Resources Content Remediation Model Litigation and Policies
History and Reputation
Campus Audit
Accessibility Expertise
Software Resources
Origin of Content
Prioritization Scheme
Software Resources

27. Questions – Software Resources
What technology already exists on campus that is used for remediation?
Is the software current?
Who has access to the remediation software?
Are there enough people that know how to use said software?
What remediation software is campus lacking?
Can a request for remediation software be incorporated into the next budget cycle?
No notes.

28. Examples – Software Resources
Remediation
Scanning (self-serve, high speed, ideally with OCR)
Optical Character Recognition with high control (ABBYY FineReader, OmniPage)
Optical Character Recognition with low control (Adobe Acrobat Professional)
Assistive Technology
Screen Magnification (ZoomText, Apple Zoom)
Text-to-Speech (NaturalReader, Central Access Reader)
Screen Reader (VoiceOver, NVDA)
No notes.

29. Potential Action Items – Software Resources
Perform a software audit, specifically looking for remediation software or assistive technology.
Evaluate the current use, version, and location of said software.
Contact a couple of other schools to see what software they use and why.
Work towards purchasing more software, if needed.
No notes.

30. Origin of Content Content Remediation Model Litigation and Policies
History and Reputation
Campus Audit
Accessibility Expertise
Software Resources
Origin of Content
Prioritization Scheme
Origin of Content

31. Questions – Origin of Content
Do you know how much of content on campus is
Created by faculty?
Borrowed from other faculty members?
Purchased from a publisher or vendor?
Linked to public-facing websites?
Do you know how the make up of created, borrowed, purchased or linked content differs by departments?
Do you know the process for purchasing content?
Who on campus helps faculty on campus the most with content?
No notes.

32. Examples – Origin of Content
School in Missouri
School in Indiana
University of WA
No notes.

33. Potential Action Items – Origin of Content
Determine a way to collect data regarding how content is created.
Meet with college/department chairs, coordinators, or secretaries to learn about where content is typically acquired for that group.
Consider building in accessibility requirements in the procurement process. Or investigate what it would take to do so.
Develop an internal process for handling already purchased, inaccessible publisher content.
Work with other institutions to collect feedback regarding the accessibility of publisher materials and share with publisher.
No notes.

34. Prioritization Content Remediation Model Litigation and Policies
History and Reputation
Campus Audit
Accessibility Expertise
Software Resources
Origin of Content
Prioritization Scheme
Prioritization

35. Questions – Prioritization
How do you want to prioritize current content that needs remediation?
How can campus improve processes to ensure that future content is created accessibly?
Does your campus use Quality Matters or other course quality evaluation tools?
Does accessibility exist within that QM structure? Can it be added?
Will this prioritization scheme need to change over time?
No notes.

36. Examples – Prioritization
By file type? (e.g. Word docs, presentation files, etc.)
By accessibility issues? (e.g. alt text, color contrast, headings, etc.)
By courses? (e.g. high enrollment courses, courses with high dropout rate, general education courses, etc.)
Some combination? (for example, UW’s prioritization for video captioning)
available to the public on a high-use website
be used multiple times in a course
developed by several faculty members to be used in several different classes
critical information
No notes.

37. Potential Action Items – Prioritization
Based on the other focus areas, determine what is the best prioritize scheme.
Ensure that there is buy-in amongst key stakeholders that would help with remediation.
Implement a method to see progress of remediation efforts.
No notes.

38. So, Who’s Going to Remediate?

39. Main Options for Ownership
Internal Team
Vendors
Faculty
Main Options for Ownership
No notes.

40. Example of Ownership Internal team
Mathematical expressions, caption videos 1-3 mins, OCRing scanned files
Internal Team
Vendors
Faculty
Example of Ownership
faculty
Alt text, headings, tables, color contrast, choosing videos with captions
vendors
PDF forms, STEM Braille, caption videos 3+ mins, audio description for all videos
No notes.

41. What Will Convince Campus?

42. Ways That Work Make it harder for inaccessible content to exist.
Or make it more worthwhile to create accessible content.
A proposal with a clearly communicated problem, and 3 different options to address that problem.
Data that demonstrates current efforts and maximization of existing resources.
Data that shows cost for potential solutions.
Benchmarking with similar institutions.
Collecting testimonials from students and faculty.
Finding others on campus with common pain points and partner up.

43. Prompt 2
What else would you add?
No notes.